A very good video on Chinese economy

[tranquilium]

You didn't see the video clearly. That is total debt, including household, corporate etc.

Chinese public debt is actually very low by International Standards.



@Hu Songshan @Deino

This person has been repeatedly warned not only for his trolling, and slandering. I think action should be taken for repeated slander and name calling.



How does the US debt sum upto 814% of GDP?

The state debt figures that you have given me are measured relative to the GDP of the state. That is if the state GDP is a trillion dollars, and the debt is 50%, this gives the net debt as 0.5 trillion.

Hence, the net debt as a fraction of total GDP would be even lower.

You have made the mistake of adding up all the debt to GDP ratios, when you should have taken a weighted mean, weighted by the respective GDP figures of each state.

The reason US debt sum up to 814%, as seen here:

State Debt Ranking Percent GDP for 2016 - Charts
Total US debt soars to nearly $60 trn, foreshadows new recession — RT USA

The numbers are somewhat different depending on the method of analysis, depending on what is supposed counted in "total debt" and method of statistics, but the message is quite clear.

Basically, as I have stated before, debt, especially corporate debt, is a normal part of business operation. I have linked my post in my previous reply to you in the other thread, so I won't bother to do it again. The gist is that for an advanced economy is expected for corporation and local government to take on quite a bit debt----because these debts are by-product of the normal social development and in the long run beneficial to the development of the society as a whole. As oppose to public debt which is pretty purely deficit and not beneficial.

This is why I am upset with your obsession with this idea of "total debt". Articles and video harping on total debt (and not surprisingly, they only seem to talk about China instead of the much bigger US total debt) are typically taking advantage of people's ignorance of what total debt actual is and you are helping to propagate the ignorance.

This is only the data until 2008 and you see how the number goes. I'm not sure it will go to 800%, but not low.
View attachment 266376

That graph is actually missing the state and local level government debt. The government debt there only include the federal debt, ie, public debt. 800% is probably one of the harsher estimates, but it is not that far off.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

The reason US debt sum up to 814%, as seen here:

State Debt Ranking Percent GDP for 2016 - Charts
Total US debt soars to nearly $60 trn, foreshadows new recession — RT USA

The numbers are somewhat different depending on the method of analysis, depending on what is supposed counted in "total debt" and method of statistics, but the message is quite clear.

Basically, as I have stated before, debt, especially corporate debt, is a normal part of business operation. I have linked my post in my previous reply to you in the other thread, so I won't bother to do it again. The gist is that for an advanced economy is expected for corporation and local government to take on quite a bit debt----because these debts are by-product of the normal social development and in the long run beneficial to the development of the society as a whole. As oppose to public debt which is pretty purely deficit and not beneficial.

This is why I am upset with your obsession with this idea of "total debt". Articles and video harping on total debt (and not surprisingly, they only seem to talk about China instead of the much bigger US total debt) are typically taking advantage of people's ignorance of what total debt actual is and you are helping to propagate the ignorance.




That graph is actually missing the state and local level government debt. The government debt there only include the federal debt, ie, public debt. 800% is probably one of the harsher estimates, but it is not that far off.

Even your own links, mention the total debt as around 350%. Not 800%.

The RT USA article clearly states that "Total US debt at the end of the first quarter of 2014, on March 31 totaled almost $59.4 trillion - up nearly $500 billion from the end of the fourth quarter of 2013, according to the data. Total debt (the combination of government, business, mortgage, and consumer debt) was $2.2 trillion 40 years ago."

If 60 trillion is the total debt, than for a GDP of around 18 trillion, that will be 333%

The reason US debt sum up to 814%, as seen here:

State Debt Ranking Percent GDP for 2016 - Charts
Total US debt soars to nearly $60 trn, foreshadows new recession — RT USA

The numbers are somewhat different depending on the method of analysis, depending on what is supposed counted in "total debt" and method of statistics, but the message is quite clear.

Basically, as I have stated before, debt, especially corporate debt, is a normal part of business operation. I have linked my post in my previous reply to you in the other thread, so I won't bother to do it again. The gist is that for an advanced economy is expected for corporation and local government to take on quite a bit debt----because these debts are by-product of the normal social development and in the long run beneficial to the development of the society as a whole. As oppose to public debt which is pretty purely deficit and not beneficial.

This is why I am upset with your obsession with this idea of "total debt". Articles and video harping on total debt (and not surprisingly, they only seem to talk about China instead of the much bigger US total debt) are typically taking advantage of people's ignorance of what total debt actual is and you are helping to propagate the ignorance.




That graph is actually missing the state and local level government debt. The government debt there only include the federal debt, ie, public debt. 800% is probably one of the harsher estimates, but it is not that far off.

I agree with you, that debt and credit are fundamental economic tools, yet debt overload is always bad. That debt, especially if its expensive can lead to recessions. You can look up the disadvantages of debt.

The other thing to keep notice of is the price of the debt.

The interest paid by developed countries is actually very cheap. It is less than 1% in US right now.

 

[tranquilium]

Even your own links, mention the total debt as around 350%. Not 800%.

The RT USA article clearly states that "Total US debt at the end of the first quarter of 2014, on March 31 totaled almost $59.4 trillion - up nearly $500 billion from the end of the fourth quarter of 2013, according to the data. Total debt (the combination of government, business, mortgage, and consumer debt) was $2.2 trillion 40 years ago."

If 60 trillion is the total debt, than for a GDP of around 18 trillion, that will be 333%

I agree with you, that debt and credit are fundamental economic tools, yet debt overload is always bad. That debt, especially if its expensive can lead to recessions. You can look up the disadvantages of debt.

The other thing to keep notice of is the price of the debt.

The interest paid by developed countries is actually very cheap. It is less than 1% in US right now.

Because the second link didn't include local and state level debt, which your video included as a major part of China's "total debt". It only counted the public (federal) debt, but did not take into account of the local/state level debt like infrastructure investment, certain social benefits and public expenditure (a lot of which is done through state and local government instead of federal government).

My point is that the whole obsession with total debt is bogus from the start and not a delusion that should be encouraged, let alone repeated over such a short period of time.

Out of the different composition of debts, public debt is the most dangerous because a lot of that was owned to foreign entities. Sure, you can resort to QE to handle it, but it hurts your global competitiveness.

Private debt such as corporate/personal debt are less dangerous than public debt, but still have risk because it risk hurting the capital flow in the nation as demonstrated by the 2008 crisis. Personal debt also have the additional risk of creating social instability.

The least dangerous of the bench is the local debt. These are truly internal debts which is owned within the government agency itself. Its biggest risk is raising inflation, due to releasing currency supply into the economy, but stable economies like China and US has sufficiently large production supplies that the inflation is low and stable anyway. The improved infrastructure itself also counteracts the effect.

For a nation like China which has low deficit, high saving and large infrastructure building programs, guess what is the part made up most of China's "total debt". Hint, it is the least dangerous one.

 

[somebozo]

I pity Indians who are obsessed with Chinese economic collapse...While Indian politicians are themselves begging for make in India..China has now outgrown its domestic needs and its investments are going to help partners...China build Gawader port in Pakistan, China is building $46 Billion CPEC, Britain is securing investment for its nuke power plants from China??? What has India got to its credit?? A failed last chance aircraft in the making, Chahbar which is now in Chinese cross hair of economic expansion...sour grapes of MMRCA??

 

[mike jones]

China has gone very far to get where they are today. Gotta give them props for that but stealing intelectual property is not cool.

 

[EAsian]

No need to say same nonsense over and over again，it's waste of time.

 

[powastick]

Even your own links, mention the total debt as around 350%. Not 800%.

The RT USA article clearly states that "Total US debt at the end of the first quarter of 2014, on March 31 totaled almost $59.4 trillion - up nearly $500 billion from the end of the fourth quarter of 2013, according to the data. Total debt (the combination of government, business, mortgage, and consumer debt) was $2.2 trillion 40 years ago."

If 60 trillion is the total debt, than for a GDP of around 18 trillion, that will be 333%




I agree with you, that debt and credit are fundamental economic tools, yet debt overload is always bad. That debt, especially if its expensive can lead to recessions. You can look up the disadvantages of debt.

The other thing to keep notice of is the price of the debt.

The interest paid by developed countries is actually very cheap. It is less than 1% in US right now.

Financial position of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rasengan]

Bussard has an obsession with China on a unhealthy level and he should be more concerned with the Government of Modi, whose expectations on reform have fallen short with the anticipated investment looking good only on paper. Instead of poking your nose in China, concentrate in creating 12 million jobs a year since public disorder is bound to occur when the population is dissatisfied. Make in India is a good programme, however the automation of machines will never employ millions of jobs a year and land reform is becoming a pipe dream. Please resolve your communal difference and stop the killings of citizens who like to eat beef.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Financial position of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is from your link:

As of 2009, there was $50.7 trillion of debt owed by US households, businesses, and governments, representing more than 3.5 times the annual gross domestic product of the United States.​

Because the second link didn't include local and state level debt, which your video included as a major part of China's "total debt". It only counted the public (federal) debt, but did not take into account of the local/state level debt like infrastructure investment, certain social benefits and public expenditure (a lot of which is done through state and local government instead of federal government).

My point is that the whole obsession with total debt is bogus from the start and not a delusion that should be encouraged, let alone repeated over such a short period of time.

Out of the different composition of debts, public debt is the most dangerous because a lot of that was owned to foreign entities. Sure, you can resort to QE to handle it, but it hurts your global competitiveness.

Private debt such as corporate/personal debt are less dangerous than public debt, but still have risk because it risk hurting the capital flow in the nation as demonstrated by the 2008 crisis. Personal debt also have the additional risk of creating social instability.

The least dangerous of the bench is the local debt. These are truly internal debts which is owned within the government agency itself. Its biggest risk is raising inflation, due to releasing currency supply into the economy, but stable economies like China and US has sufficiently large production supplies that the inflation is low and stable anyway. The improved infrastructure itself also counteracts the effect.

For a nation like China which has low deficit, high saving and large infrastructure building programs, guess what is the part made up most of China's "total debt". Hint, it is the least dangerous one.

It clearly states that it includes government debt.

You are yet, to produce any link that produces 800 odd percentage as the total debt of the US.

 

[tranquilium]

This is from your link:

As of 2009, there was $50.7 trillion of debt owed by US households, businesses, and governments, representing more than 3.5 times the annual gross domestic product of the United States.​

It clearly states that it includes government debt.

You are yet, to produce any link that produces 800 odd percentage as the total debt of the US.

@powastick already linked it in post #22, but I am going to link it to you again.

Financial position of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is the link from 2014 Q1, by the federal reserve:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1.pdf

BTW, for US, "government debt" can mean different things. In the case of the 60 trillion measurement, it just means federal debt. State debt and local debt is counted differently, but the wikipedia link has pretty good coverage already.

 

[Azadkashmir]

i think now china is in the r/d age but what about agriculture / food does china have enough fertile land to feed its population?

 

[Dungeness]

i think now china is in the r/d age but what about agriculture / food does china have enough fertile land to feed its population?

That really depends what you mean by "feed". If Chinese consume the food at current rate, China has to import large quantity of farm products. But if Chinese can learn to live like Indians, no meat, little vegetable, some eggs and milk, mostly cereal, China would only need a small portion of its current farm land.

 

[Azadkashmir]

That really depends what you mean by "feed". If Chinese consume the food at current rate, China has to import large quantity of farm products. But if Chinese can learn to live like Indians, no meat, little vegetable, some eggs and milk, mostly cereal, China would only need a small portion of its current farm land.

the reason i asked is because china is building more and more factory this means fertile land will be reduced.

 

[tranquilium]

i think now china is in the r/d age but what about agriculture / food does china have enough fertile land to feed its population?

List of countries by GDP sector composition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

China's agriculture GDP is the largest in the world and more than the next four countries (India, United State, Indonesia, Brazil in that order) combined.

Modern agriculture is a combination effort, from available land, supporting infrastructure (such as dam, water reservoir), labor, instrument, agriculture research and technology, supporting industry (fertilizer, pesticides, seed cultivation), available resource (supply for supporting industry, such as petroleum for vehicle fuel and chemical industry for making fertilizers, etc). There are really only two countries in the world that has top performance in all these categories----China and US.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

i think now china is in the r/d age but what about agriculture / food does china have enough fertile land to feed its population?

Yes China can feed itself.

While China is increasingly importing agricultural products, they are by far, not BULK products.

The only bulk product that I can think of is soy, which is not that essential.

China is self sufficient in grains which is the staple.

Plus, China's agriculture has a lot of room to grow, with the average yields as low as half or a third in some cases that of the developed world.

Also it must be mentioned that these are peace times, and under any crisis, Chinese people can easily survive with half the food they produce right now.